They pray in communion with notorious
heretics and receive the sacraments from them

As is a well known fact, Peter Dimond and his brother,
Michael
Dimond, knowingly attends Mass at “meetinghouses
(churches) of the heretics” and thus knowingly prays in
communion with and receives the sacraments from the very same
notorious heretics that he condemns. He attends Mass at an Eastern
Rite church that is under the apostate antipope of the Vatican II
church. He also admits—although he tries to deny this—that
the priests and most of the people in the church where he attends
Mass (and in other churches where he tells his followers to attend
Mass) are notorious, known heretics, as we will see.

Peter Dimond, The
Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult
times: “Of course, we want to stress, once again, that none
of these points are meant to suggest that one may attend the Mass
of, or receive Communion from, every
undeclared heretic. As we point out, it depends on the
undeclared heretic. He must meet certain conditions: he must be
validly ordained, using a traditional rite, he cannot be imposing,
notorious, etc.”

Peter Dimond, The
Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult
times: “In receiving the sacraments from
certain Byzantine priests for over the last decade –
i.e. from priests who are not notorious or imposing about their
heresies – I’ve received what I consider to be tremendous
spiritual graces.”

Heretics very often contradict themselves and deny what
they also confirm in other places, and Peter Dimond is not an
exception to this rule. Peter namely teaches that a person that he
knows is a bad willed, obstinate heretic (and who therefore is a
notorious, known heretic) also is not a notorious heretic at the same
time! that is, unless he meets the Dimonds own made up standards for
determining when a person is to be considered notorious.

Almost any heretic today can easily become known as a
notorious and known, public heretic. In fact, it’s so easy
today to find out whether a priest is heretical or not that all one
has to do is simply to ask the priest what he believes.

Precisely because it’s so easy today to find out
whether a priest is heretical or not, the Dimonds tells their readers
to call the priests and ask them certain questions before allowing
themselves to receive the sacraments from them.

MHFM, Where to Go to
Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments:
“For example, with regard to a priest in the Eastern Rite who
accepts Antipope Benedict XVI as the pope, here are some guidelines:
you mustcall the Eastern Rite
priest up and ask him certain questionsbefore receiving
Communion from him. You should confirm that he was ordained in
the Eastern Rite and ask him what he thinks of praying with
members of other religions, “ecumenism,” etc. If
he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II
ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and
you should not receive Communion from him. Another question to
ask him is whether he believes that non-Catholics, such as the
“Orthodox,” need to be converted to the Catholic Faith.
If he doesn’t say “yes,” then he is a
notorious heretic. But if he answers in a more
conservative way, then you could go to him for Communion
without supporting him. But when you go to such a Mass in order to
receive Communion, we recommend that you simply pray by
yourself...”

Even though Peter disagreed with us in the debate
when we said that a priest is a public and notorious heretic for
simply making his obstinate heresy known to us, he nevertheless
agrees with us on his own website when dealing with other issues,
such as when it would NOT be lawful to receive the sacraments from
certain known heretical priests, as we just saw above. So, dear
reader, Peter and Michael Dimond do agree with us... but only when
it suits their own purpose.

One could wonder then, if (as they say) the priest
becomes a notorious heretic for simply admitting to his heresy,
doesn’t this mean that whenever we have found out about his
heresies and if he’s obstinate in them that he must be avoided
for communion, even according to the Dimonds’ own standard? Of
course it does.

MHFM: “If he’s
not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then
he is a notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from
him.”

Peter Dimond, Outside
the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation: “God
allowed the Catholic Buildings, Seminaries and Schools
to be taken away and confiscated by a counterfeit
non-Catholic sect (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect), with
apostate priests, perverts, a phony “Mass” (the New Mass)
and an apostate antipope…”

Therefore, by Peter’s own admission, he knowingly
prays in communion with notorious heretics and receives the
sacraments from them and tells others they can do the same — a
practice which the Church has always condemned:

Pope Pius IX, Sept. 16,
1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): “That
Christians and ecclesiastics should pray... under the direction of
heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is
radically impregnated and vitiated with heresy [such as a heretical
mass presided over by a heretical priest that prays in communion with
the apostate Vatican II sect and its antipope], is absolutely
impossible to tolerate!”

Council of Carthage: “One
must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall
communicate with those who are cut offfrom the
communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him
be excommunicated.”

But even though the Dimonds admitted above that the
priest is a notorious heretic after admitting
to his heresy, yet, in another hypocritical twist, they
nevertheless teach that some heretics that WE KNOW ARE
HERETICS AFTER TALKING TO THEM, may nevertheless be
communed with as long as they are NOT NOTORIOUS about their
heresies.

Peter Dimond, Where to
Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the
Sacraments: “But with some other “traditionalist”
priests, you can go to them for confession and Communion if they are
validly ordained and notnotorious
or imposingabout their false [heretical] positions and if
one doesn’t support them.”

Do the Dimonds contradict themselves? Of course they
do. According to the Dimonds, a priest can be both a
notorious heretic and a non-notorious heretic
at the same time!

By the way, if you ever wonder where Peter Dimond got
his “imposing” argument from, know he have simply made it
up for himself. As far as we are aware of, no saint, theologian or
even a heretic has ever made such an idiotic argument before prior to
Peter and Michael Dimond, that is. The Dimonds simply made up this
argument from thin air to bolster their heresy of receiving the
sacraments from heretics.

But what does Peter do to get around the dogma that
Catholics are forbidden to attend the Masses of and pray in communion
with and receive the sacraments from notorious heretics or
schismatics, while not seeming to deny it? He denies the Church’s
definition of a notorious-in-fact heretic. Peter believes that a
priest who is an undeclared heretic cannot also be a notorious
heretic unless the priest publicly teaches his heresy to his
parishioners and also imposes his heretical beliefs upon them as a
condition for attending his Masses or receiving the sacraments from
him. The underlining is Peter’s:

Peter Dimond, The
Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003 version: “When priests
make public announcements that are heretical, which impose the
heretical belief upon the people attending the Mass, then a
Catholic must not attend the Mass or receive Holy Communion from such
a priest. This is not the case with a heretical independent, C.M.R.I.
or SSPX priest who has not made an announcement such as this;
in fact, most of the C.M.R.I, independent, SSPX and Byzantine priests
(who hold to the same heresy as the SSPV) are silent about their
heresies (and therefore they are not notorious heretics), and
they don’t impose them upon anyone, so that receiving
Communion from them (as long as one does not support or agree with
them) is not a denial or a compromise of the Faith. But the SSPV
has placed itself in another category - the category of notorious
heretics who impose their heresy upon the people attending their
Masses - which puts their Masses and their sacraments off limits.”

You will find no good or bad theologian who teaches
that an undeclared heretic must also impose his heresy on others to
become a notorious heretic.

Furthermore, notoriety is not determined
by the fact if the priest imposes his heresies upon anyone, nor by
how many people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic or
schismatic or by the fact if he is preaching his heresies from the
pulpit; but this is rather determined by the fact from what youcan know or understand about the heretical person in question.
This is also the exact teaching of the very 1917 Code itself,
which
Peter Dimond purports to quote to give credence to his heresy:

1917 Code of Canon Law,
Canon 2197, §3: “An offense is notorious
by notoriety of fact, IF IT IS PUBLICLY KNOWN
and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be
concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse
admitted in law (i.e., both the fact of the offense and the
imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known).”

According to the above Canon: a priest’s
heresy or crime becomes notoriousand publicthe moment it has been made known to others.

But how can one be excused? Let’s ask St.
Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Supplement, Q. 60, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3: “Now
if the husband strike a cleric whom he found with his wife he
is not excommunicated [but is excused from excommunication
because of the circumstances]... This does not prove that it is
lawful simply, but that it is lawful as regards immunity from a
particular kind of punishment, since excommunication is also a kind
of punishment.”

So the 1917 Code of Canon Law is referring to a
LEGITIMATE legal defense, not some false argument like “I can’t
judge the pope”, or “Vatican I requires perpetual
successors” that Peter usually mentions
as excuses. Both of these are false arguments and do not
constitute concealments or excuses in law, but heretics like Peter
throws them out anyway, as though the Church was granting license to
commune with criminals who pervert the laws and doctrine of the
Church.

Notorious or public heresy has thus nothing to do
with how many people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic
or if he imposes his heresies on others during mass. Thus, the
Canon law of the Church clearly teaches that a heresy of a heretic
becomes public and notorious the moment it has been made known to
others. This fact is of course also backed up by both the Saints and
the Popes of the Catholic Church:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De
Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15: “... for men are
not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT
SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A
HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church
has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of
the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC
COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH,
WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF
DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Hence the Catholic Church condemns the Dimonds and
anyone who teaches that an undeclared heretic becomes a notorious
heretic only if he imposes his heresy on others during mass. By
pretending that priests who are undeclared notorious heretics are not
notorious heretics or schismatics but only undeclared heretics whose
heresy or schism is less than notorious, the Dimonds deceive their
readers who are inclined to put the Mass before the Faith into
receiving the sacraments from them—directly contrary to the
decrees of the Church. In this way the Dimonds, speaking for the
Devil, have deceived their readers into knowingly attending the
Masses of and praying in communion with and receiving the sacraments
from the worst kinds of notorious heretics that may ever have lived!
Thus, the Dimonds assist the Devil in holding fast and murdering
these people’s souls (of those who are fully aware of what they
are doing) inflicting mortal sin upon mortal sin on them: “Woe
to you, apostate children, saith the Lord, that you would take
counsel, and not of me: and would begin a web, and not by my spirit,
that you might add sin upon sin...” (Isaiah 30:1)

In reality, all heretics are separated from the Church
whether they are “imposing” about their heresies or not.
Hence, they are all to be avoided as odious heretics that
undermine the Catholic Faith (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran
Council, Session 8, ex cathedra).

We are not allowed to choose which heretics we can
approach as the Dimonds are doing, just as if some heretics should be
tolerated while others not. This is totally unscriptural, and
contradicts numerous Catholic teachings, as we will see.

Is it an article of divine and
Catholic faith that forbids praying in communion with heretics and
receiving the sacraments from them?

Peter Dimond, E-mail
conversations with Richard
Ibranyi (RJMI) (12/29/2001): “Council of Laodicea, 365:
"No one shall pray in common with heretics." The
Council of Laodicea is a regional council, not an ecumenical one;
thus, it doesn’t even represent Church discipline solemnly
promulgated by a Pope, let alone a "truth of divine and Catholic
faith" (dogma)... Council of Carthage, stating basically the
same thing as the Council of Laodicea... Carthage, like the one from
Laodicea, is not "an article of divine and Catholic faith."
It is a disciplinary decree... III Council of Constantinople. "If
any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or
the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let
them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or
deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from
communion." (Sacrorum Conciliorium, XI:635) This is
also not an article of divine and Catholic faith, but another
disciplinary decree, like Laodicea and Carthage. ...
Therefore... I [do not] deny a truth of divine and Catholic
faith... I don’t join my prayer with any heretics, nor do I
recommend anyone to do so, but only true Catholics... I repeat that I
don’t pray or sing psalms with heretics...”

Peter Dimond could not be more wrong when he said “It
is a disciplinary decree... not an article of divine and Catholic
faith” to avoid heretics in the sacraments, for it is a
dogmatic and certain fact (and of divine and Catholic faith) –
and not only a disciplinary law – that Catholics can only be
in religious communion with other Catholics and that they may never
worship with or receive the sacraments from people who are heretics,
schismatics, or infidels (as we will see). Hence that it is the
divine and dogmatic law that bans Catholics from religious communion
with known heretics and schismatics or from entering their churches.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium
animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it
is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to
take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

To knowingly enter into a religious house that is
heretical or schismatical is of course to profess religious unity
outwardly in a way that is completely unacceptable. The scandal this
provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For
every person that sees you entering a heretical “church”
where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume that you
agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of faith that must exist
between people who call themselves Catholic and who worship God is
one constant that can never be changed according to Catholic
teaching. This is called divine law. Without the unity of
faith, there is only darkness and eternal fire, as Pope Leo XIII and
the following quotes makes clear:

Pope Leo XIII, SatisCognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this reason, as
the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the
Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the
faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church
is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects
and involves UNITY OF COMMUNION, IS
NECESSARY JURE DIVINO (BY DIVINE
LAW).”

Here we see Pope Leo XIII explicitly teaching that “the
unity of the faith” and the “UNITY OF COMMUNION,
IS NECESSARY JURE DIVINO (BY DIVINE LAW)”
and that this “is of necessity required for the unity
of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the
faithful,” thus proving to anyone of good will that
religious communion in the sacraments is not only a disciplinary law
but of divine and catholic faith.

Pope Pius XII, MysticiCorporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true
Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord,
and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore
if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered –
so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It
follows that those who are divided in faith or government
cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be
living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas
Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all
intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish
priests; do not hold communionwith them especially in divine worship.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great,
Dialogues (c. 593 A.D.): “Rather ought every one to
submit to death, than to receive the sacrament of communion
from the hand of a heretic.” (Quoted by Gratian,
Decretum, 42. xxiv. q. 1)

Pope St. Leo the Great,
Sermon 129: “Wherefore, since outside the Catholic
Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled, the Apostle
declaring that "all that is not of faith is sin" (Romans
14:23), we are in no way likened with those who are divided
from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in
no communion.”

Pope St. Clement I, 1st
Century: “If any man shall be friendly to those with whom
the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those
who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may
seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and
is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our
avowed foes.”

III Council of
Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or
layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses
of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and
deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or
deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from
communion [excommunicated].”

However, Peter has also admitted that religious
communion is of divine and Catholic faith in a debate with a Novus
Ordite (a defender of Vatican II). They were discussing whether
non-Catholics could receive the Eucharist lawfully (without sin) at a
Catholic Church.

Peter Dimond, A Response
to Bob Sungenis – the heretic posing as “Catholic
Apologist”: “And it wouldn’t even matter if
Vatican II only mentioned “danger of death,” as Canon
844.4 of the New Code does (but not Canon 844.3, the New Catechism
#1401 or Vatican II’s Decree), since people who reject the
Catholic Faith can never receive Holy Communion lawfully in danger of
death. People who reject the Catholic Faith (or any dogma) are in
a position of rejecting God (the author of the dogmas), and
therefore cannot receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist worthily.
The Church cannot change the divine law that heretics cannot
receive Communion even in danger of death, which Vatican II
attempted to change.”

So Peter do agree with the above quotations and
statements (that this is of Divine and Catholic Faith) but only
insofar as it suits his own purpose, since he claims it’s only
of divine law when heretics receive the sacraments from Catholics,
but not likewise of divine law when Catholics – or pretended
Catholics – receive the sacraments from heretics.

However, there are two exceptions to this
doctrine of receiving the sacraments from heretics, and that is
baptism, and marriage (with the direct approval of the Church). This
specific canon from the Council of Florence deals with the
sacrament of baptism. The Catholic Church, the Natural Law or
Tradition will always make it clear when there is an exception to a
dogma.

Pope Eugene IV, Council
of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In
case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but
even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic
can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has
the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

This specific statement from Peter deals with the
sacrament of marriage:

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments
from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes:
“In the debate with Eli, I brought up the fact that the Church
has permitted mixed marriages. While the Church does not recommend
mixed marriages – it actively discourages them – it’s
a fact that marriages between Catholics and heretics have been
approved by popes on certain occasions. … In the debate,
Eli switched the topic and argued that the Church never approved
going to a heretical minister for marriage. That
of course is true but completely irrelevant. It has
nothing to do with the point. We agree that the Church
hasn’t approved going into a non-Catholic church or seeking out
a non-Catholic minister to witness the marriage. The
point is that in marriage the two people exchange the sacrament
among themselves, and therefore, in a mixed marriage, the
Catholic is exchanging the sacrament with a heretic.”

In Matrimony, as Peter also pointed out, the
contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament,
and the priest acts only as a witness of the sacrament taking place
between the contracting parties.

The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “It
is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting
parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make
the contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by Christ to the
dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical “Arcanum”,
10 Febr., 1880).”

Now, if there ever were such a teaching that would
allow for Catholics to receive any other sacrament besides the
sacrament of baptism – in case of a necessity – from a
heretical or schismatical minister, be sure that it would have been
dogmatically defined by the Church or used by Peter Dimond in his
debates and articles. However, this has not been defined by
the Church and no such quote has ever been brought forth by
Peter Dimond on his website, because it has never and will never be
allowed for Catholics to knowingly approach a heretical or
schismatical minister to hear his mass or
receive his invalidly and illicitly
consecrated sacraments, except for the sacrament of baptism in
case of a necessity. (remember, marriage is not received from
a minister but is exchanged between the contracting parties
themselves).

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7, Reply to Objection 2:
“Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by
heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case
of necessity; but in no case can they
lawfully [without sin] consecrate the
Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 9: “I answer that, As
was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even
sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the
Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary,
they sin by using it. But whoever communicates
with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2:
“The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters
directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by
holding communion in Divine worship [with one
who is excommunicated, such as heretics or schismatics] one acts
against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium
animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it
is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to
take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

Pope Leo XIII also points out that a kind of sacrament
of marriage (but not the full Christian sacrament of marriage between
baptized individuals) existed from the beginning of the world, both
amongst the faithful and even amongst the unbelievers.

Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum
#19, Feb 10, 1880: “Marriage has God for its Author, and
was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the
Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something
holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men,
but implanted by nature. Innocent III, therefore, and Honorius III,
our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a
sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and
unbelievers.”

All people, even the heretics and the unbelievers since
the beginning of time have exchanged a kind of sacrament of marriage
between each other both validly and licitly, because, as Pope Leo
XIII points out, “Marriage has God for its Author,” and
obviously, there can never be a sin in doing what God has
approved of to take place—unless of course one knowingly acts
in direct opposition to the Church’s laws. Even Peter agrees
with this, for he is admitting on his website that the “sin
is caused by communicating with them despite
(against) the Church’s prohibition...”
(“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate –
The Important Quotes)

The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 9; "Mixed Marriage" (1910): “As
to a mixed marriage contracted before a non-Catholic minister, Pope
Pius IX issued an instruction, 17 Feb., 1864. He declared that in
places where the heretical preacher occupied the position of a civil
magistrate and the laws of the country required marriages to be
entered into before him in order that certain legal effects may
follow, it is permitted to the Catholic party to appear before him
either before or after
the marriage has taken place in presence of the [Catholic] parish
priest. If, however, the heretical minister is held to be
discharging a religious duty [like confecting
the Eucharist] in such witnessing of a marriage, then it is unlawfulfor a Catholic to renew consent before him as this would be a
communion in sacred things and an implicit yielding to
heresy.”

Furthermore, a Catholic is only allowed to marry a
heretic under the strictest of circumstances, and that only with the
approval of the Church. The contracting parties must also have agreed
upon to raise and educate the children in the Catholic religion. So
Peter is absolutely right when he says that the sin of
communication in the sacraments with heretics is triggered when you
do so despite the Church’s prohibition. The Church
prohibits receiving the other sacraments from heretical ministers,
therefore, it is a mortal sin to presume to receive these sacraments
from them.

Pope Pius VIII, TraditiHumilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it
this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house[at
meetinghouses of heretics] will perish as did
those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissumdivinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares
to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer
shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the
Lamb outside of this house[at the meetinghouses of the
heretics] is unholy [i.e, whoever eats the Lamb in
the houses of heretics is unholy].’”

So the Church clearly condemns anyone who obstinately
defends eating the Lamb “outside of this house” (the
Catholic Church) at the meetinghouses of the heretics, for “It
is impossible for us [Catholics] to hold communion after their death
with those [heretics] who have not been in communion with us during
their life.” (Pope Innocent III, chapter xii, de sepulturis,
lib. III, tit. xxviii)

The Communication of Catholics with
Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, p 91: “On May 15, 1709,
the Holy Office forbade Catholics to hear the confession of
schismatics or to confess to them… Under no
circumstances, not even in the case of necessity,
according to a response of the Sacred Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith on Feb. 17, 1761, was it permissible
for a Catholic to confess his sins to a schismatic priest in order to
obtain absolution from him…” In a question
presented to the same Congregation in 1839, the following reply was
made: “Ethiopian converts were not to receive the sacrament of
Penance from an heretical priest.” When the Congregation was
asked about whether such a practice could be tolerated in a case of
necessity, “the Congregation furnished the ironical if not
indignant reply, ‘Nihil esse respondendum.’” Rev.
Szal comments: “The answer to the question appeared so manifest
that to raise the question at all branded the questioner’s
action as foolhardy, and consequently as deserving no reply.”
Szal notes that, “It is gravely illicit to request or receive
the sacrament of Penance from a schismatic minister… The
ordinary necessity which a person senses when he is in the state of
mortal sin is not sufficient to allow him to confess to a schismatic
priest and receive absolution... Such a person would be
obliged to make a Perfect Act of Contrition as best he could…”

Now, this exception on baptism, even from the hands of
a heretical minister, is really necessary since no man can ever be
saved (or by any other means enter into the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church) without the sacrament of baptism. This, of course,
is another proof of the explicit necessity for all to be baptized in
order to be saved.

Pope Paul III, The
Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex
cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is
optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5):
let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The
Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22,
1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the
gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the
sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body
of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first
man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we
cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of
heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and
natural water.”

The point being made, one will not, however, find any
exceptions regarding any other of the sacraments in regards to
heretical or schismatical ministers.

Heretics and schismatics are separated
from communion with the Church

Pope Pius IX, EtsiMulta, #26, Nov. 21, 1873: “Therefore, by the
authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and
hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and all
those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious
consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has
adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished
help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and
command that they are separated from the communion of the Church.They are to be considered among those with whom all
faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle [2
John 10-11] to associate and have social exchange
to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not
even be greeted.”

The above quote is very relevant to our situation today
in that many priests and adherents of those priests would fall under
this very same condemnation and be condemnedif the see of
St. Peter was not vacant. First let’s learn a little
history about the above condemnation of Joseph Humbert and all his
adherents: "A surprisingly large number of German priests and
laymen rejected the First Vatican Council’s solemn teaching
on the papacy. In September 1870, nearly 1,400 Germans who called
themselves ‘Old Catholics’ signed a declaration that
renounced the conciliar teaching. In September 1871, 300 delegates
met in Munich to organize a new church. Unable to find a
Catholic bishop who would renounce Catholic dogma and join them,
the Old Catholics turned to the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of Devetner
in the Netherlands of the schismatic Little Church of Utrecht. He
ordained Father Joseph Humbert Reinkens a bishop in August
1873."

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac
diuturnae (#’s 1-4), March 23, 1875: “… the
new hereticswho call themselves ‘Old Catholics’...
these schismatics and heretics... their
wicked sect... these sons of darkness...
their wicked faction... this
deplorable sect... This sect overthrows the foundations of
the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic
definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes
itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed
and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those
unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect
should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with
the Church.”

Here, Pope Pius IX gives an explicit confirmation that
people must consider heretics or schismatics to
be outside the Church and communion and that there is no need for a
further declaration to decide this. But who can deny the fact that
Vatican II also is a “new church”,
and that all the validly ordained bishops and priests left in this
“new church” also would fall under
the same condemnation as Joseph Humbert and his followers?
Therefore, without a doubt, you may not approach any of the validly
ordained Novus Ordo priests for the sacraments of Confession
or the Eucharist at all, as Peter Dimond and the rest of the heretics
and schismatics teach.

Another striking fact is that almost all of the validly
ordained priests left in the entire world (both traditional
“Catholic” priests and Novus Ordo priests alike),
also reject Vatican I and papal infallibility, by obstinately denying
various infallible Catholic dogmas. The old “Catholics”
was excommunicated for this very reason, and one were not even
allowed to greet them, and anyone who would adhere to them (by for
example, receiving the sacraments from them) was to be excommunicated
just like them.

“We have decreed
and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those
unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect
should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with
the Church.” (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae
(#’s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Therefore, without a doubt, neither may you approach
any of the validly ordained traditional “Catholic”
priests left in the world for the sacraments, if they obstinately
deny or reject even a single Catholic dogma or hold to even a single
heresy, as Pope Leo XIII, the Holy Bible, and Second Council of
Constantinople makes perfectly clear:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum (# 9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all can
for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For
there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in
this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy
he is not a Catholic.”

Pope Leo XIII, SatisCognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the
Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as
outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church,
whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine
proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Titus 3:10: “A man
that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.”

2 John 1:9-10: “Whosoever
revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not
God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the
Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed
you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth
with his wicked works.”

Pope Vigilius, Second
Council of Constantinople, 553: “The heretic,
even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual,
in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off
from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such
people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is
factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have
nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person
is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In other
words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, all your
spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.

1 Kings 15:22-23: “And
Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and
not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed?For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken
rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin
of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to
obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord,
the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”

If a person rejects God’s truth, he cannot please
Him. To hold that one may licitly receive the sacraments from
heretics, in light of all the facts, is simply to deny God.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi
Humilitati (#4), May 24, 1829: “Indeed this deadly idea
concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by
the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the
various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is
true, the other must be false; there can be no society of
darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the
people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is
uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one
faith, one baptism.”

What makes a church non-Catholic and a
meetinghouse of the heretics?

Peter Dimond “Sacraments
from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes:
“When the councils refer to avoiding “meetinghouses of
heretics” and “non-Catholic churches,” they
are, like this canon, referring to groups, buildings and sects that
are notorious in law (declared) or notorious in fact (openly
non-Catholic in the external forum). This should be obvious
even to the Catholic sense of any person who considers this issue;
for there is an obvious difference between an Eastern “Orthodox”
[openly non-Catholic]... and a “traditionalist”
heretic [openly calling himself “Catholic”] under
Benedict XVI... Decrees concerning one’s obligation to avoid
the “meetinghouses of heretics,” etc. are not
referring to priests or groups who celebrate a traditional
Catholic rite and profess to hold all Catholic teachings, but are
actually heretical.”

Peter claims that a heretical church who professes
itself “Catholic” and that celebrates the traditional
liturgy is somehow different from a notorious meetinghouse of the
heretics such as the Eastern “Orthodox”.

This statement from Peter is totally false yet
nonetheless true in another sense. Let me explain: It is true in the
sense that a church who professes itself “Catholic” at
least outwardly (perhaps) don’t appear to be heretical in the
same way as a Protestant or “Orthodox” church would. For
example, we would know immediately upon hearing that if such and such
a church was Protestant or “Orthodox” that it’s not
Catholic and that it must be presumed to be heretical. The same
normally don’t apply to churches who professes
themselves “Catholic,” of course. For when a church
professes itself “Catholic” it’s only natural to
assume that it’s a Catholic Church before one sees the evidence
of heresy or schism. I say normally because today we must
assume that any “Church” who professes itself “Catholic”
is heretical since all of them (as far as we are aware of)
either denies the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for
salvation or rejects several of his dogmas.

Now the problem with Peter isn’t that he’s
unaware of the fact whether the traditionalists he approach and tell
others to approach are obstinate and known heretics or not, but that
he in fact is fully aware of this, and yet he somehow makes them out
to be “less” heretical than the Eastern “Orthodox”
churches. It is totally false to make this comparison because it’s
just a fact that the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are less
heretical than the Novus Ordo church or even most of the
traditional “Catholic” churches. So if the Eastern
“Orthodox” then called themselves Catholic (which they
also do), then according to the Dimonds’ warped and heretical
view, so long as they’re undeclared, they would be the best
option for us to hear mass and receive the sacraments from. But to go
to these “Orthodox” schismatics would of course be
unlawful and a mortal sin. But then again, the same applies to all
other heretics as well that are perhaps worse heretics than the
Eastern “Orthodox” have ever been or are. In reality,
there are no kinds of heretics that are acceptable to the Church or
who can be excused or accepted within Her communion, as we have seen.
However, as we saw above, Peter strangely thinks that it is decided –
if we have to avoid someone – based on what they call
themselves and whether they claim to profess a
“sound faith”.

Let’s recall the statements of St. Basil the
Great, Pope Leo XIII, and the Holy Bible again that so clearly
refutes Peter:

St. Basil the Great,
Archbishop of Caesaria in Cappodocia: “As for all those who
pretend to confess sound orthodox Faith [like the
“traditionalists” Peter referred to above], but are
in communion with people who hold a different opinion [but
who are in communion with Vatican II followers and manifest
heretics], if they are forewarned and still remain
stubborn [if we have admonished them once or twice but they
still remain obstinate in their heresy], you must not only notbe in communion with them, but you must not even call them
brothers [then we must NOT be in communion with them even if
they call themselves “Catholic” or “traditionalists”].”
(Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 17, p. 303)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum: “St. Augustine notes that ‘other
heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give
his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic
unity… if any one holds to one single one of
these [heresies] he is not a Catholic.’”

St. Titus 3:10-11: “A
man that is a heretic, after the first and second
admonition, avoid: Knowing
that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being
condemned by his own judgment.”

Here we can see that tradition teaches us to judge
others (such as heretics) based on what FAITH THEY
BELIEVE IN AND PROFESS, and NOT what they pretend to
“confess”, as the heresiarch Peter is advocating.

Those who hold Peter’s heretical position must
also understand that the churches which they obstinately call
“undeclared Catholic churches” in fact are notCatholic Churches at all. We are too far gone in
the Great Apostasy for obstinately holding to this erroneous position
any longer.

Today, a traditional “Catholic” church or
Novus Ordo church where most if not all priests and laymen are
known, obstinate heretics or schismatics that even reject the
necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation or
denies several of his dogmas, can in no way be likened with a
Catholic Church prior to the Vatican II revolution when the apostasy
was not so visible yet and many priests and laymen were still fully
Catholic. For to reject even a single dogma of the faith is in
fact to reject the entire Catholic faith, as explained by Pope Leo
XIII:

Pope Leo XIII, SatisCognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be
lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the
very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself
from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the
whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that
nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject
others… But he who dissents even in one point from
divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith,
since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the
formal motiveof faith.”

So if they don’t even hold the Catholic faith one
cannot obstinately refer to them as “Catholic” or their
churches as “Catholic churches” or their mass as a
“Catholic mass” or their sacraments as “Catholic
sacraments!” Their churches are heretical
churchesand their sacraments are mortally
sinful and/or invalid sacramentsand their
mass is an illicit and mortally sinful mass,
as should be totally obvious to any honest person of good-will
reading this document.

Again, God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In
other words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, all your
spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.

1 Kings 15:22-23: “And
Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and
not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed?For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken
rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin
of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to
refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of
the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”

The Dimond brothers like to have their
cake and eat it too

Observe how the Dimond brothers play both sides of the
fence. How many times have we all heard from Novus Ordo people and
other heretics that we don’t have the right to judge who is a
heretic? That a heretic has to be formally declared by the Church? Of
course we all know that’s not true and it seems the Dimond
brothers would agree with this. Well, sometimes that is. You see,
they sadly like to have their cake and eat it too. You see out of one
side of their mouth they say that Catholics have the obligation to
judge and denounce heretics, and that heretics lose authority in the
church WITHOUT DECLARATION.

MHFM, E-Exchanges on
various issues: “Heretics lose all membership and
authority in the Catholic Church automatically.”

MHFM, E-Exchanges on
various issues: “Catholics have an obligation to judge
and denounce heretics when they manifest their rejection of Catholic
truth by their words and actions.” (Archive 1)

Then out of the other side of their double tongued
mouth they say that it is lawful to receive the sacraments from a
heretic so long as he is an “undeclared” heretic, meaning
that he has not officially been declared a heretic by the Church. Now
can anyone please tell me how they are going to be officially
declared a heretic when the see of St. Peter is vacant?

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments
from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes:
“CATHOLICS MAY RECEIVE SACRAMENTS FROM SOME PRIESTS WHO ARE
UNDECLARED HERETICS in this time...”

Peter Dimond, Sacraments
From Heretics Debate: “And what we’ve pointed out on
our website, we’ve not said that unless someone’s
imposing he cannot be considered a heretic. No what we’ve said
is, that WITHOUT A DECLARATION, FOR THERE TO BE A POSITIVE
ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO AVOID AN UNDECLARED HERETIC, he would
either have to be an imposing heretic, impose his false views on you,
or be so notorious that it cannot be concealed or excused in
anyway in law.”

As was noted already in the beginning: If you ever
wonder where the Dimonds got their “imposing” argument
from, know they have simply made it up for themselves. As far as we
are aware of, no saint, theologian or even a heretic has ever made
such an idiotic argument before prior to Peter and Michael Dimond.
The Dimonds simply made up this argument from thin air to bolster
their heresy of receiving the sacraments from heretics.

MHFM, Where to Go to
Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments:
“If he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the
Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and
you should not receive Communion from him.”

But even though the Dimonds admitted above that the
priest is a notorious heretic after admitting
to his heresy, yet, in another hypocritical twist, they
nevertheless teach that some heretics that WE KNOW ARE
HERETICS AFTER TALKING TO THEM AND THEY ADMITTED
TO THEIR HERESY, may nevertheless be communed with as
long as they are NOT NOTORIOUS about their heresies!

But to prove that Peter and Michael Dimond are heretics
and liars from their own words, we will look at three quotations from
their website.

First quote:

Peter and Michael Dimond,
Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for
the Sacraments: “But with some other “traditionalist”
[heretical] priests, you can go to them for CONFESSION and
Communion if they are validly ordained and NOT NOTORIOUS
or imposing about their false positions and if one doesn’t
support them.”

Note: Their position in the first quote is that we may
receive the sacraments from heretical priests as long as they are
notnotorious.

Second quote:

MHFM, Where to Go to
Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments:
“The problem is that almost all of even
the “traditionalist” priests who are offering the
(correct) forms of traditional Mass also hold to heretical positions.
Almost all of the priests who are offering traditional forms of Mass
either... hold that certain people can be saved outside the
Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire”/”invincible
ignorance”). This unfortunately applies to almost every
single “traditionalist” priest today. … BUT
MAY ONE GO TO SUCH A PRIEST FOR COMMUNION, IF THE PRIEST IS VALIDLY
ORDAINED IN THE TRADITIONAL RITE OF ORDINATION AND IF ONE DOESN’T
SUPPORT HIM? YES, ONE MAY GO SOME OF THESE “TRADITIONALIST”
PRIESTS IF THEY MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS.”

Note: Their position in the second quote is that we may
go to a notoriously heretical priest that has admitted or made
known his heresy of denying the necessity of believing in Jesus
Christ for salvation as long as one doesn’t support him.
(The Dimonds actually argues that this priest is not a
notorious heretic even though he has admitted to his heresy and is
obstinate in it!)

Third Quote:

Michael Dimond, Can
Catholics go anywhere to receive sacraments today: “While
we would say that the notoriously heretical priest may not
be approached for Holy Communion, we believe that those
priests who are notoriously heretical because they like
ecumenism and praying with and respecting other religions may
be approached for confession, if you cannot find any better
options for confession within a reasonable distance. If he is a
notoriously heretical priest who doesn’t think you
are a Catholic because of what you believe, WE WOULD SAY
YOU MAY ONLY GO TO HIM FOR CONFESSION IN DANGER OF DEATH.”

Note: Their position in the third quote is that we may
go to them even if they arenotoriously
heretical. (By the way, the Dimonds only claim that the priests
they deem notorious are notorious! Every other priest, like the
priest mentioned above that denied the necessity of believing in
Jesus Christ for salvation, according to them, is not
notorious.)

So, according to the Dimonds, one can go to them for
the sacraments if they are not notorious and one can go
to them for the sacraments if they are notorious and
have admitted to their heresies. Which one is it, Dimonds, can we
or can we not go to them if they are notorious, known
heretics?

While they like to claim (or rather only appear
outwardly as if they have as opinion) that one may not
approach a notoriously heretical priest at all for the sacraments,
yet, as we could see above, they don’t really believe that this
is true – at least not in regards to confession or any other of
the heresies they are excluding from the notorious category –
and in so doing they are refuting themselves, showing themselves to
be complete liars by their own words.

But one may wonder then, why is Peter even claiming
that one must avoid “all notorious heretics absolutely,”
when he doesn’t even believe that this is true?

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments
from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes:
“The “heretics” and clearly non-Catholic
“meetinghouses of heretics,” WHICH MUST BE AVOIDED
ABSOLUTELY, are: 1) those that have been declared or 2) THOSE
THAT NOTORIOUSLY REJECT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [OR FAITH] WITHOUT
“CONCEALMENT” – NOTORIOUS IN LAW OR NOTORIOUS IN
FACT.”

Do they contradict themselves? Of course they do. All
heretics contradict themselves and are confused, and the Dimonds are
no exception.

It’s as if the Dimonds actually seem to believe
that their self made list of what constitutes a notorious heresy is
applicable to the rest of humanity! Their view actually have the
boldness to claim that some heresies can be tolerated or excused
while others may not. The Catholic Church however condemns all
heresies and heretics and shuns communion with them. How MHFM decide
which heresies can be tolerated or excused or not is of course
impossible to understand. As all honest people can see, it’s
just the imaginations of the Dimonds’ own made up claims
without any dogmatic proof whatsoever to back up their words.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum: “The Church has always regarded as rebels and
expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any
point of doctrine different from her own. … St. Augustine
notes that ‘other heresies may spring up, to a single one of
which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut
offfrom Catholic unity… IF
ANY ONE HOLDS TO ONE SINGLE ONE OF THESE [HERESIES] HE IS NOT A
CATHOLIC’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”

That not even a single saint or doctor of the Church
can ever be cited to have received a sacrament (except for perhaps
baptism) from a known heretic, even though countless people have been
in situations where sacraments were not available, does not face the
Dimonds’ satanic will one bit.

More on Peter Dimond’s illogical
and heretical teachings on notorious-in-fact heretics

What follows is more evidence of the Dimonds’
illogical and heretical teaching regarding who is a notorious-in-fact
heretic. They present evidence which proves that Bishop Mark
Pivarunus and the priests of his heretical CMRI sect are undeclared
obstinate heretics for denying the Salvation Dogma; yet, Peter
teaches that Catholics are allowed to attend Mass at CMRI churches
and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from CMRI
priests.

Peter Dimond, The
Heretical CMRI: “The priests of the CMRI are one of the
only sedevacantist priestly societies in the world, and their Masses
constitute the only legitimate option for valid sacraments for some
people today… However, we have pointed out in our newsletters
and magazines the unfortunate yet undeniable fact that the priests
of the CMRI are heretics (as will be shown below). The priests of
the CMRI are heretics first and foremost for their obstinate
denial of the solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is
necessary for salvation. The CMRI twice published in their
Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, ‘The Salvation of Those
Outside the Church.’ The article indicates that those who die
as non-Catholics can be saved, which is a blatant rejection of
Catholic teaching. In fact, the title of the article ‘The
Salvation of Those Outside the Church’ is a word for word
denial of the Catholic dogma “Outside the Church there is no
salvation.” It is equivalent to publishing an article entitled:
‘The Original Sin of Mary.’”

Every CMRI priest that Peter spoke to denied the
Salvation Dogma:

Peter Dimond, The
Heretical CMRI: “This heresy was so blatant that I called
the headquarters of the CMRI in Washington and spoke to one of the
priests about the article. He told me that he had ‘no problem
with it.’ A priest from the CMRI’s seminary in Nebraska
and a nun from the CMRI convent in Washington told me (when I
questioned them over the telephone) that non-Catholics who die in
their false religions can be saved without the Catholic faith. This
has been the response of every priest of the CMRI that I have
questioned about this issue.”

Notice that Peter clearly denounces the CMRI priests as
obstinate (meaning formal) heretics but nevertheless teaches that
“their Masses constitute the only legitimate option for valid
sacraments for some people today.” Therefore, while Peter
believes the CMRI priests are undeclared obstinate heretics, he also
believes they are not undeclared notorious heretics because if they
were he would not say Catholics are allowed to attend their Masses
because he correctly believes Catholics are forbidden to attend the
Masses of and pray in communion with notorious heretics. Hence Peter
denies the very definition of an undeclared notorious heretic. An
obstinate undeclared heretic whose heresy is in the public domain is
a notorious heretic, by the very definition of a notorious-in-fact
heretic.

According to the Dimonds, no matter how much and how
certain the public evidence is against the CMRI priests for teaching
heresy, these priests cannot be notorious heretics unless they also
impose their heresy on others. That is why the Dimonds teach that
Catholics are allowed to attend the Masses of CMRI priests in spite
of the fact that the Dimonds have denounced them as obstinate
heretics. Peter says that “The priests of the CMRI are one of
the only sedevacantist priestly societies in the world, and their
Masses constitute the only legitimate option for valid sacraments for
some people today… However… the priests of the CMRI are
heretics first and foremost for their obstinate denial of the
solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for
salvation.” Again, although Peter teaches that these priests
are obstinate heretics, he does not believe they are notorious
heretics.

Peter Dimond, The
Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003: “When priests make
public announcements that are heretical, which impose the
heretical belief upon the people attending the Mass, then
a Catholic must not attend the Mass or receive Holy Communion from
such a priest. … This is not the case with a heretical
independent, C.M.R.I. or SSPX priest who has not
made an announcement such as this; in fact, most of the C.M.R.I,
independent, SSPX and Byzantine priests (who hold to the same heresy
as the SSPV) are silent about their heresies (and therefore they
are not notorious heretics),
and they don’t impose them upon anyone, so that receiving
Communion from them (as long as one does not support or agree with
them) is not a denial or a compromise of the Faith.”

Peter says the CMRI priests are silent about their
heresies! If so, then how does he know they teach heresy so that he
could denounce them as obstinate heretics? If they were truly silent
about their heresies, then they would be occult heretics; and hence
no mere man on earth, and that includes Peter, would know about their
heresies.

But why does Peter say we can approach some
priests that we know are heretical when he says about other priests
who accepts ecumenism, or that “impose the heretical belief
upon the people attending the Mass”, that we may not approach
them?

Peter’s dishonesty here is that he excuse the
heretics’ crimes of heresy (that murders people’s souls)
by claiming that they are not notorious about their heresies.
He claims this even though he knows and even admits that the priests
he approaches (and tells others to approach) are notorious, known
obstinate heretics. Peter makes this distortion by misapplying
and misinterpreting the heretical 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Peter Dimond,
“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate –
The Important Quotes: “The Code of Canon Law contains
the distinctions between public, notorious in law, and notorious
in fact...

To summarize the
Definitions:

Public = commonly known
or can be commonly known

Notorious in law =
declared

Notorious in fact =
public and so notorious that it cannot be concealed or
excused

“Since the meaning
of notorious in law (declared) is obvious, we must continue to
focus on notorious in fact. As we see above, the lack of
“concealment” or “evasion” is the key in
rendering something notorious in fact. The crime of the person who
is notorious in fact cannot be concealed. While there are
numerous examples we could consider, the Eastern “Orthodox”
rejection of Vatican I is an excellent one. There is no
concealment: they don’t accept the Papacy. They openly and
without evasion reject it. They are, therefore, notorious in fact.
Such a priest is openly non-Catholic and must be avoided.”

His
above commentary was on this following canon:

Canon 2197.1-4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“A Crime is public: (1) if it is
already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead
to the conclusion that it can and will easily become
so;

(2) Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence
by a competent judge that renders the matter an abjudicated thing, or
after a confession by the offender made in court in
accord with Canon 1750;

(3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly
known and was committed under such circumstances that no
clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse
could excuse;

(4) Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is
hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known]…”

Note carefully the bolded and underlined portions
above. Canon law No. 1 & 3 clearly states that a crime is publicif “it can and will easily
become so”, and notorious, “if
it is publicly known”.

Canon 2197.1-4, 1917
Code of Canon Law: “A Crime is public:
(1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances
are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can
and will easily become so;(3) Notorious by notoriety
of fact, if it is publicly known...”

So even the EXACT SAME CANON LAW that Peter uses to
“prove” his heretical doctrine, actually condemns his own
position! How ironic.

But to prove this even further, consider the following.
Is not the different traditional societies’ heretical
literature publicly available and easily accessible for anyone at
anytime today? Of course they are. So their heresies are public,
and in the public domain, and are commonly known, or
will easily become so to anyone who just looks into it.

Here follows some public and commonly known heretical
literature from two priestly societies’ that Peter and Michael
Dimond teaches one can receive the sacraments from under certain
conditions:

Peter Dimond, The
Heretical CMRI: “The CMRI twice published in their
Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, ‘The
Salvation of Those Outside the Church.’ The article
indicates that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, which is
a blatant rejection of Catholic teaching.”

The SSPV, The Roman
Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the
strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine [on no salvation
outside the Church], however, I must take issue, for if I read
and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is
allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on
the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church
at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all
the billions of non-Catholicswho
have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them
were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse
to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Notice that the SSPV writer “simply refuse to
believe” in the Church’s dogma that all who die as
non-Catholics are lost. This is the SSPV’s public
teaching (and all of these heretical priestly societies teaches their
heresies publicly, as anyone can easily see for themselves by
consulting MHFM’s own articles on the subject!). Yet Peter goes
on to teach that Catholics are allowed to attend the Masses of and
pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from these
obstinate heretics.

Peter Dimond, Important
Update on the Heretical Society of Pius V: “… This
is why we have taken pains to strenuously point out to those who
attend the Masses of the SSPV (or the C.M.R.I., Society of St.
Pius X, Byzantine churches, and almost all independent ‘traditional’
priests, etc. who believe the same way) that they cannot give them
any financial support under pain of mortal sin, for this would
actually constitute a denial of the faith by donating to a heretical
organization.”

But what did the 1917 Code mean with excused
that Peter mentioned?

Peter Dimond, Sacraments
From Heretics Debate: “And what we’ve pointed out on
our website, we’ve not said that unless someone’s
imposing he cannot be considered a heretic. No what we’ve said
is, that without a declaration, for there to be a positive
absolute obligation to avoid an undeclared heretic, he would
either have to be an imposing heretic, impose his false views on you,
or be so notorious that it cannot be concealed OR EXCUSED
IN ANYWAY IN LAW.”

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments
from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes:
“Notorious in fact = public and so notorious that it cannot be
concealed or excused... AS WE SEE ABOVE, THE
LACK OF “CONCEALMENT” OR “EVASION”
IS THE KEY IN RENDERING SOMETHING NOTORIOUS IN FACT. THE CRIME OF THE
PERSON WHO IS NOTORIOUS IN FACT CANNOT BE CONCEALED [OR EXCUSED].
While there are numerous examples we could consider, the Eastern
“Orthodox” rejection of Vatican I is an excellent one.
There is no concealment: they don’t accept the Papacy. They
openly and without evasion reject it. They are, therefore, notorious
in fact. Such a priest is openly non-Catholic and must be avoided.”

Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 60, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3:
“Now if the husband strike a cleric whom he found with his
wife he is not excommunicated[but is excused
from excommunication because of the circumstances]. … This
does not prove that it is lawful simply, but that it is lawful as
regards immunity from a particular kind of punishment, since
excommunication is also a kind of punishment.”

So the 1917 Code of Canon Law is referring to a
LEGITIMATE legal defense, not some false argument like “I can’t
judge the pope”, or “Vatican I requires perpetual
successors” that Peter usually mentions as “excuses”
(as we will see below in more detail). Both of these are false
arguments and do not constitute concealments or excuses in law, but
heretics like Peter throws them out anyway as though the Church was
granting license to commune with criminals who pervert the laws and
doctrine of the Church.

Notorious or public heresy has thus nothing to do
with how many other people actually are aware of the priest being a
heretic or if the priest “imposes” his heresies on others
during mass. Thus, the Canon law of the Church clearly teaches
that a heresy of a heretic becomes public and notorious the moment it
has been made known to others, or can and will easily become known
so. This fact is of course also backed up by both the Saints and the
Popes of the Catholic Church:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De
Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound,
or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A
HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE
AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church
has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of
the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC
COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH,
WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF
DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Hence the Catholic Church condemns the Dimonds and
anyone who teaches that an undeclared heretic becomes a notorious
heretic only if he imposes his heresy on others during mass. By
pretending that priests who are undeclared notorious heretics are not
notorious heretics or schismatics but only undeclared heretics whose
heresy or schism is less than notorious, the Dimonds deceive their
readers who are inclined to put the Mass before the Faith into
receiving the sacraments from them — directly contrary to the
decrees of the Church. In this way the Dimonds, speaking for the
Devil, have deceived their readers into knowingly attending the
Masses of and praying in communion with and receiving the sacraments
from the worst kinds of notorious heretics that may ever have lived!
Thus, the Dimonds assist the Devil in holding fast and murdering
these souls (who are fully aware of what they are doing) inflicting
mortal sin upon mortal sin on them: “Woe to you, apostate
children, saith the Lord, that you would take counsel, and not of me:
and would begin a web, and not by my spirit, that you might add sin
upon sin:” (Isaiah 30:1)

PETER’S “CONCEALMENT”
AND “EXCUSED” IN LAW HERESY REDUCED TO ITS ABSURD
PRINCIPLE

Ever wondered why Peter says we can approach
some priests that we know are heretical when he says about other
priests who accepts ecumenism etc., that we may not approach them?

Couldn’t the Dimond brothers warped Canon Law
principle of excused and concealed in law likewise
excuse the heresy of the Vatican II ecumenism, if we play after the
Dimonds’ own standards? Of course it could. For so long as the
heretic could divert the attention elsewhere and say something like:
“Look, the Vatican II ecumenism is only about bringing the
false religions of the world back into the bosom and unity of the
Church again, and, Christ wants all to be Saved! Therefore, since the
Church is His Body and the Church hierarchy approves of this, I have
to accept it, even if I don’t agree with it or understand it.
And, we must be in subjection to the Roman Pontiff, and obey
him—that’s a dogma—and so we cannot deny it;
therefore, we must accept it. Neither can we judge the Pope, or the
Church, and, Christ promised that the Gates of hell can never prevail
against it! And there must be perpetual successors to St. Peter and
so on and so forth; and so the Church cannot be wrong on this, etc.”

Couldn’t all of these above mentioned excuses
make up a concealment in law or an excuse in law even
according to Peter Dimond’s own demonical and heretical
standard? Of course it could. But Peter only follows his own
principles when it suits him!

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments
from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes:
“For example, a priest who offers a traditional liturgy under
Benedict XVI, who has seen the evidence that Benedict XVI cannot be
the pope, cannot “excuse” his adherence to him. He is
guilty of heresy for obstinately adhering to him. BUT HE MIGHT BE
ABLE TO “CONCEAL” HIS CRIME AND REJECTION OF CATHOLIC
TEACHING UNDER AN ALLEGED FIDELITY TO VATICAN I, AN ALLEGED
FIDELITY TO THE TEACHING THAT “NO ONE CAN
JUDGE THE HOLY SEE,” ETC. WHILE THIS “CONCEALMENT”
DOESN’T EXCUSE HIM – HE IS STILL GUILTY – IT
COULD RENDER HIM NOT NOTORIOUS IN FACT[WHICH THEN
MEANS, ACCORDING TO PETER, THAT ONE MAY COMMUNE WITH HIM!].”

Even though Peter claims above that he don’t
believe that the priest can be “excused” for his heresies
etc., the fact is—whether he ever will admit to it or not—that
he in fact are excusing their heresies by concealing them for
them! However an obstinate crime or heresy that is known to a person
cannot be concealed, since it is known. Therefore, Peter has no
excuse for “concealing” a known obstinate priest’s
heresy because Peter certainly KNOWS that the priest is guilty!
Peter is truly the devil’s advocate who, instead of pleading
guilty sentences for criminals who spit at and reject the laws of
God, is searching for ways to acquit them from a guilty sentence! A
criminal could of course try to conceal his own guilt in a court of
law and so be acquitted of the charges if it was not known that he
was guilty or if evidence was lacking. But for Peter to “conceal”
a known heretic’s crimes when he even knows he’s guilty,
is so incredibly stupid and evil that one can only marvel at his
evilness.

They can excuse a priest who rejects our Lord Jesus
Christ and the necessity of believing in Him, but seems not to excuse
people who believe that the Vatican II ecumenism is acceptable? How
does that make any sense? What is a more evil heresy, 1) to reject
that it’s necessary to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ for
salvation with obstinacy and without concealment; or 2) to accept
ecumenism obstinately and without concealment? Obviously #1 is a much
worse crime to be guilty of and to commit since to reject Christ is
to reject the entire Christian Faith.

If MHFM did not excuse some of the major
heretical beliefs that the validly ordained heretical priests
believed in, then, there would be virtually no
priests left in the entire world that they, or their followers could
go to for mass and the sacraments. That’s how bad the
situation has become today, as even the Dimonds are forced to admit.

Peter Dimond, An
Unanswered Letter? Our letter “debate” with Bishop
McKenna on Baptism of Desire: “They hold that members of
false religions can be saved without the Catholic Faith and are
complete heretics. It is a demonstrable fact, easily ascertained
by just asking any of their priests, that the priests of the CMRI
adhere to the heretical Protocol 122/49 and believe that
invincible ignorance can save members of false, non-Catholic
religions and persons who don’t believe in Jesus Christ. This
heresy is held by almost all priests today.”

MHFM, Where to Go to
Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments:
“The problem is that almost all of even
the “traditionalist” priests who are offering the
(correct) forms of traditional Mass also hold to heretical positions.
Almost all of the priests who are offering traditional forms of Mass
either... hold that certain people can be saved outside the
Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire”/”invincible
ignorance”). This unfortunately applies to almost every
single “traditionalist” priest today. No priest
who... believes that souls can be saved without baptism or the
Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire” or “invincible
ignorance”) can be supported... That means that almost
every “traditionalist” priest today cannot be supported,
since he is holding a position at variance with Catholic teaching.”

MHFM, A Warning about
Certain Heretical “Traditionalist” Priests and Chapels:
“The problem, however, is that almost all
of the priests celebrating these traditional and valid Masses
hold to one or more heresies. Almost all of them either... deny
the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation in its true
meaning – that is, that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.
Many of them hold to other heresies as well.”

If MHFM would be consistent with their own teaching,
they would have to excuse the priest who accept the Vatican II
ecumenism as well. They would not only excuse the priest who rejects
all other dogmas or even the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ
for salvation, but would further have to excuse the Vatican II
ecumenism or the heresy that the Eastern “Orthodox”
doesn’t need to be converted.

THE DIMOND BROTHERS ENTERS INTO
COMMUNION WITH THE GATES OF HELL!

Pope Vigilius, Second
Council of Constantinople, 553: “…we bear in mind
what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the
gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by
these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics).”

To knowingly receive a sacrament from a heretical
person despite the prohibition of the Church, means, to be in
religious communionwith that person, and he
who does this culpably has, in reality (unless ignorance excuse
him), broken off his communion with the Churchby uniting
himself with those who are outside, with those who are THE
GATES OF HELL!

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art 2: “An excommunicated
person is banished from communion. Therefore
whoever communicates with him leaves the
communion of the Church[commits schism]:
and hence he seems to be excommunicated.”

That Peter and Michael Dimond (who claims to be
Catholic) actually enters into communion with known heretics,
schismatics, and apostates, thus entering into communion with
the GATES OF HELL, is quite revealing, and it
proves how the Church’s indefectibility is not effected by
obstinate heretics like Peter and Michael Dimond, since they are not
Catholic. So their heretical position is in no way affecting the true
faithful Catholics or the true Church of Christ since no true
Catholic is in communion with apostates from the Faith.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the
punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy
heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”
(On Leviticus 17:3)

St. John Damascene: “With
all our strength, therefore, let us never receive communion
from or grant it to heretics; ‘Give not that which is
holy unto dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine,’ (Matt. 7:6); lest we become partakers in their dishonor
and condemnation.”

This evidence should be enough for anyone who is not
suffering from the mortal illness of bad will and pride. If you have
fallen for this heresy, we pray with tears that God may lead you out
of this outrageous and scandalous position which has forced you to
profess external communion with the most abominable, apostate,
heretical or schismatical priests and laymen that may ever have
lived!

Copyright information: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the information.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42